Larger Maps should be considered, Too cramped at the moment. - Rust

So of course with the addition of cars in the future, I instantly got that 'Mad Max' vibe to the game. But another thing came to my mind; these maps are way too small for vehicles, not to mention they are too small as it is. It seems we are cramped in this small map with no room to 'hide' a base. Everything is in the danger zone and it's not a matter of -IF- you will get raided, but when. Don't get me wrong, this is a great game but I want to do all I can to make sure it's successful as well. If this game is going to succeed fully, we need to have room as well to build and hide our bases. If we enlarge the maps, this does a few things: - It increases the lifespan of bases - Gives players the ability to build a grand fortress - Allows players to keep territory without having to share it with neighbors - Gives room for players to haul ass and do donuts where they want - Allows for greater exploration and room to add dungeons, towns and landmarks Now I'm not saying let's make the map the size of FUEL (Although that WOULD be pretty cool and promote raiding caravans) But something huge enough that actually makes using vehicles viable other than for killing lowbies. I understand a lot of people [No offense] have a short attention span. They simply don't have the patients to sit there and drive forever, but this can EASILY be fixed. Just give the players a bunch of toys like you would an infant in the backseat and they will be quiet the entire ride. As for what exactly? Here are a few of my shitty ideas... - Paintball guns so passengers can shoot their friends while they drive - A music player (Or radio if that is canon) - Checkers with magnetic checker pieces so they don't fall off - The ability to compose music [Should really be added] Could easily be done using your keyboard. - A Microphone so people can hear you sing from a distance. Anyway, I hope you consider this. I'd really love to see it. Hope you enjoy my other ideas as well. Good luck! :)

Bigger maps cause problems at the moment.

[QUOTE=trustinrocks;49645933]Bigger maps cause problems at the moment.[/QUOTE] Right, but in time, they could be resolved. It would be worth going through the bugfixes if it meant a better game. Right now, we have a lot of issues of this game not being too replayable. I'm a patient dude, but even I get worn out after a really beautiful base I've made (The tenth one) gets demolished because I needed to sleep.

Yes, bigger maps would be sweet but I assume server stability would take precedence over that. In all honesty, the best solution to the problem you suggested is to play on a lower populated server. There would be more space between players. In all honesty this game provides very good stability for the player counts supported per server at the moment. As well, in larger maps, people will hide out at the far reaches and have less confrontations, which is basically the same as being in a low population server. I like that the spaces are a bit "confined", it forces player interaction. I've played other unity based games with a similar premise with either larger maps or infinite maps, but they just cannot support the same number of players. Also, infinite gets boring quickly when people literally run for hours in one direction to avoid other players creating a single player game in a multiplayer environment.

Developers main mission and occupation is to make this game playable by everyone Optimization, bug fixes, exploits and such stuff, after that they'll think about upgrades

But with all due respect; we shouldn't do that at all. I'm not saying make this game ONLY for high spec PCs but we shouldn't be optimizing this game because someone doesn't want to upgrade. Though that's my opinion. [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=WolfEater;49646136]Yes, bigger maps would be sweet but I assume server stability would take precedence over that. In all honesty, the best solution to the problem you suggested is to play on a lower populated server. There would be more space between players. In all honesty this game provides very good stability for the player counts supported per server at the moment. As well, in larger maps, people will hide out at the far reaches and have less confrontations, which is basically the same as being in a low population server. I like that the spaces are a bit "confined", it forces player interaction. I've played other unity based games with a similar premise with either larger maps or infinite maps, but they just cannot support the same number of players. Also, infinite gets boring quickly when people literally run for hours in one direction to avoid other players creating a single player game in a multiplayer environment.[/QUOTE] Right but right now, the player interaction is more of a burden than what's needed. There's not enough space like I said before. If maps were larger, player interaction would simply be more intense than it is and more rewarding/dangerous.

[QUOTE=Sgtteddybear5;49646412]But with all due respect; we shouldn't do that at all. I'm not saying make this game ONLY for high spec PCs but we shouldn't be optimizing this game because someone doesn't want to upgrade. Though that's my opinion.[/QUOTE] Optimizing doesn't necessarily mean making the graphics worse. It's basically organizing everything in a way that gives the game the best performance at all levels of graphic detail.

our "big maps" are kinda big enough never completly travelled one

[QUOTE=SulliG99;49647413]our "big maps" are kinda big enough never completly travelled one[/QUOTE] If you get a good group of people, you realize how small the maps really are. [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zipper Bear;49646431]Optimizing doesn't necessarily mean making the graphics worse. It's basically organizing everything in a way that gives the game the best performance at all levels of graphic detail.[/QUOTE] I was more going off the fact Facepunch would have to cut some corners in order to allow a lot of the lower end PCs to play this game.

We do have massive maps already, your standard rust map has a server size of 4000 which is 16km2. You can change this number to anything you like, 8000 is the highest I've ever seen though. And at 8000 the map is 64km2 which is absolutely massive. The thing is though, once you get your server size to 5000+ performance takes a drastic hit, which means it needs more restarts and shorter wipe cycles, so most admins (the good ones anyway) will just stick to the standard 4000, some go to 5000, but these would definitely need a weekly wipe on a high pop server.

All you are complaining about is population density. Just play on a low pop server running the default 4000. Any bigger and nodes start to be hella spread out.

[QUOTE=Sgtteddybear5;49648006]If you get a good group of people, you realize how small the maps really are. [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] I was more going off the fact Facepunch would have to cut some corners in order to allow a lot of the lower end PCs to play this game.[/QUOTE] they are really big enough as soon as they get bigger fps will crumble even more

[QUOTE=Hahapingazzz;49648064]We do have massive maps already, your standard rust map has a server size of 4000 which is 16km2. You can change this number to anything you like, 8000 is the highest I've ever seen though. And at 8000 the map is 64km2 which is absolutely massive. The thing is though, once you get your server size to 5000+ performance takes a drastic hit, which means it needs more restarts and shorter wipe cycles, so most admins (the good ones anyway) will just stick to the standard 4000, some go to 5000, but these would definitely need a weekly wipe on a high pop server.[/QUOTE] Well in time I'd imagine facepunch can find a way to handle these issues so we CAN utilize those really huge maps. But my argument is that even though those are big, they aren't big enough when we get horses and cars. There's no where to establish your bases and you must be online 24/7 to defend them. [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=joejoejoey04;49648339]All you are complaining about is population density. Just play on a low pop server running the default 4000. Any bigger and nodes start to be hella spread out.[/QUOTE] Not really. Even with the map being what it is on a smaller server, people still EASILY run around and spot your base. If we were have a genuinely massive map, OR AT LEAST islands then we could instance each and make the game truly HUGE [editline]1st February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SulliG99;49648375]they are really big enough as soon as they get bigger fps will crumble even more[/QUOTE] That's where optimization comes in. They CAN make it work, it's just a matter of figuring out how.

Sorry only read the first two posts - I'm in complete agreement with the OP and have started threads similar to this. I now play on low pop servers for the very reason of feeling isolated and need to travel. If implemented tomorrow, vehicles would be more of a toy, you dont NEED them to get from A to B that a lager map would offer.

I've ran many big maps takes a year and a day.anything but a 300 pop server it's too big

[QUOTE=Jreadman23;49649939]I've ran many big maps takes a year and a day.anything but a 300 pop server it's too big[/QUOTE] I'm not saying increase the population, but simply the map size. Same POP, bigger map makes vehicles more useful and needed. I imagine heavy instancing could be utilized.

I agree maps need to be bigger. I don't think we need cars with toys in them yet tho, or even relatively soon. What we need in Rust currently more than anything is more diversity, and more mechanics to gameplay.

[QUOTE=Thor-axe;49650312]I agree maps need to be bigger. I don't think we need cars with toys in them yet tho, or even relatively soon. What we need in Rust currently more than anything is more diversity, and more mechanics to gameplay.[/QUOTE] This is no doubt a suggestion for down the road. :)

Maps are great but 1, there is not enough cover to hide bases, they can easily be found, i feel more dense forests and complicated hills mountains and far more unmarked caves should be placed 2, the maps are a lot bigger than legacy but you can still run from end to end in 10 minutes and with the terrain been mostly low or if high then basic and cannot hide easily, then you can spot bases with no problem so for me the maps should at least be fuller and more complicated if this were the case then they would not need to be bigger

Same amount of people (100 or 200) but bigger maps... as the op says this gives the chance to 'hide' bases better.

[QUOTE=Sneak2;49650521]Maps are great but 1, there is not enough cover to hide bases, they can easily be found, i feel more dense forests and complicated hills mountains and far more unmarked caves should be placed 2, the maps are a lot bigger than legacy but you can still run from end to end in 10 minutes and with the terrain been mostly low or if high then basic and cannot hide easily, then you can spot bases with no problem so for me the maps should at least be fuller and more complicated if this were the case then they would not need to be bigger[/QUOTE] You're totally on point with that summary. The sameness of the legacy map made it seem very big, and endless, which resulted in people getting lost constantly as pretty much everywhere was just brown hills with rocks, but the actual area that spawned things was rather tiny.

Ye man, maps are tiny.

[QUOTE=Sneak2;49650521]Maps are great but 1, there is not enough cover to hide bases, they can easily be found, i feel more dense forests and complicated hills mountains and far more unmarked caves should be placed 2, the maps are a lot bigger than legacy but you can still run from end to end in 10 minutes and with the terrain been mostly low or if high then basic and cannot hide easily, then you can spot bases with no problem so for me the maps should at least be fuller and more complicated if this were the case then they would not need to be bigger[/QUOTE] It might be just me, but I noticed once I learn an area I can easily make my way around. For example I'll memorize an entire map if I play long enough. If we are going to have 300 people, we need bigger maps. But my biggest worry is when Vehicles get implemented. I'm not making fun of anyone but it's human nature to reject change too quickly. But if it was implemented right and everyone loved it, no one would complain. Besides: Servers can ALWAYS downsize maps in case there are people who want to keep them small.

[QUOTE=Sgtteddybear5;49652069]It might be just me, but I noticed once I learn an area I can easily make my way around. For example I'll memorize an entire map if I play long enough. If we are going to have 300 people, we need bigger maps. But my biggest worry is when Vehicles get implemented. I'm not making fun of anyone but it's human nature to reject change too quickly. But if it was implemented right and everyone loved it, no one would complain. Besides: Servers can ALWAYS downsize maps in case there are people who want to keep them small.[/QUOTE] I have no problem with larger maps but i still feel the maps in general are a bit simple and Barron regarding hiding bases for me it would be no problem having huge maps but there is no point in lager maps if lets say its open flat bushy waste land were you can see everything quite plainly or mountains were it is impossible to hide a base we need intricate caves that weave in the mountain side and deeper valleys and even underwater caves or even dig our own base in the ground and be able to camouflage it as for cars, i am for now against the idea even with larger maps i feel it would take something away from the game ...horses maybe but not totally sure

[QUOTE=Sneak2;49652179]I have no problem with larger maps but i still feel the maps in general are a bit simple and Barron regarding hiding bases for me it would be no problem having huge maps but there is no point in lager maps if lets say its open flat bushy waste land were you can see everything quite plainly or mountains were it is impossible to hide a base we need intricate caves that weave in the mountain side and deeper valleys and even underwater caves or even dig our own base in the ground and be able to camouflage it as for cars, i am for now against the idea even with larger maps i feel it would take something away from the game ...horses maybe but not totally sure[/QUOTE] But that's the thing. We DO need those wide open areas for cars and such. Deserts should be vasts wastes of nothing and dangerous to traverse since they are so damn hot and make you dehydrated faster. If you're against cars then I no doubt imagine they will have servers that don't allow them.

Cars are just appeasement toys, the result of throwing out a bunch of ideas before you sit down and plan out what's feasible. They have no place in the current game of Rust, or really any past iteration. Rust is essentially a wilderness game, not a flat post-apocalyptic wasteland survival game. Vehicles would either be impossible to drive on most of the terrain, would be Mario go-karts ignoring physics in a comic manner (7D2D), or you'd have to flatten the terrain making it even more boring and difficult to hide in or around. Horses are perfect style-wise, just like rafts and little rowboats, but would go the way of Eoka pistols once the guns came out to play. I would love to play a genuine first-person open-world multiplayer post-apoc survival vehicle-driven base-building game with realistic distances [B]done properly[/B], but this is not Mad Max... and there's absolutely no indication Rust is, will be, or even *could possibly* head in that direction. And there's also no indication whatsoever that the code, as it has been developed over the past few years, will be capable of doing what it's meant to do in a vast 2x, 3x max map size environment. Optimization has already been mostly backloaded to late alpha, and that's just for what's there now. IMHO, development effort needs to be put into more tactically and craftily using the existing environment to obscure or defend bases and hideouts, not in useless toys, not in trying to make a running simulator where you can build in complete isolation because the map is too vast to find other players.

[QUOTE=Murdo;49652415]Cars are just appeasement toys, the result of throwing out a bunch of ideas before you sit down and plan out what's feasible. They have no place in the current game of Rust, or really any past iteration. Rust is essentially a wilderness game, not a flat post-apocalyptic wasteland survival game. Vehicles would either be impossible to drive on most of the terrain, would be Mario go-karts ignoring physics in a comic manner (7D2D), or you'd have to flatten the terrain making it even more boring and difficult to hide in or around. Horses are perfect style-wise, just like rafts and little rowboats, but would go the way of Eoka pistols once the guns came out to play. I would love to play a genuine first-person open-world multiplayer post-apoc survival vehicle-driven base-building game with realistic distances [B]done properly[/B], but this is not Mad Max... and there's absolutely no indication Rust is, will be, or even *could possibly* head in that direction. And there's also no indication whatsoever that the code, as it has been developed over the past few years, will be capable of doing what it's meant to do in a vast 2x, 3x max map size environment. Optimization has already been mostly backloaded to late alpha, and that's just for what's there now. IMHO, development effort needs to be put into more tactically and craftily using the existing environment to obscure or defend bases and hideouts, not in useless toys, not in trying to make a running simulator where you can build in complete isolation because the map is too vast to find other players.[/QUOTE] agreed it would not be good trying to find a needle in an haystack but at the moment its like trying ti find a telegraph pole in an haystack ..which is in my opinion even worse and yes cars in my mind some how just don't fit the game or the feel; they would have to be dune buggy's or the like to get around the terrain but even then i am not a fan of the idea .......but horses could fit the bill

[QUOTE=Murdo;49652415]Cars are just appeasement toys, the result of throwing out a bunch of ideas before you sit down and plan out what's feasible. They have no place in the current game of Rust, or really any past iteration. Rust is essentially a wilderness game, not a flat post-apocalyptic wasteland survival game. Vehicles would either be impossible to drive on most of the terrain, would be Mario go-karts ignoring physics in a comic manner (7D2D), or you'd have to flatten the terrain making it even more boring and difficult to hide in or around. Horses are perfect style-wise, just like rafts and little rowboats, but would go the way of Eoka pistols once the guns came out to play. I would love to play a genuine first-person open-world multiplayer post-apoc survival vehicle-driven base-building game with realistic distances [B]done properly[/B], but this is not Mad Max... and there's absolutely no indication Rust is, will be, or even *could possibly* head in that direction. And there's also no indication whatsoever that the code, as it has been developed over the past few years, will be capable of doing what it's meant to do in a vast 2x, 3x max map size environment. Optimization has already been mostly backloaded to late alpha, and that's just for what's there now. IMHO, development effort needs to be put into more tactically and craftily using the existing environment to obscure or defend bases and hideouts, not in useless toys, not in trying to make a running simulator where you can build in complete isolation because the map is too vast to find other players.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sneak2;49654342]agreed it would not be good trying to find a needle in an haystack but at the moment its like trying ti find a telegraph pole in an haystack ..which is in my opinion even worse and yes cars in my mind some how just don't fit the game or the feel; they would have to be dune buggy's or the like to get around the terrain but even then i am not a fan of the idea .......but horses could fit the bill[/QUOTE] This is no doubt something that will have to be proven to work for people to enjoy it. This could easily be done right. I never got why people got so upset over flat maps. If anything I like wide open spaces. Feels far more natural to see a giant plane once in awhile. We need to open our minds a bit and consider how things could work and test them. As much as we deny it, this game is STILL being made, there is room for experimentation.

I still feel like some of you guys haven't even screwed around with the seed sizes yet. 6000 seed is over twice the size of the standard 4000 seed. It gets to 8000 right, before being screwy? 8000 server seed is 4 times bigger than a 4000 seed. Rust already has the potential of a 64km2 area. Some huge fucking maps right there already.

[QUOTE=Sgtteddybear5;49646412]But with all due respect; we shouldn't do that at all. I'm not saying make this game ONLY for high spec PCs but we shouldn't be optimizing this game because someone doesn't want to upgrade. Though that's my opinion.[/QUOTE] I don't think a lot of players would be willing to upgrade their PC just so they could play Rust "decently". It's just not worth it. I'm playing on a laptop that runs some high-end games just fine, it should be able to run Rust with no problems when it's optimized. But, just think about that. How many Rust players have a "real" gaming PC? I know I don't. I know a lot of them don't either. The voices of those who don't should be heard, otherwise they'll leave the game, and the playerbase will slowly decrease. And I think nobody wants that to happen.